= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm an economist not a programmer, but shouldn't the goal of programming be to write code that other people value? Also, you do need other people to program, the people who build the hardware, operate the power system, grow your food..., it's just that with extremely high probability you can count on them being there for you.
What you say is absolutely true on a large scale.
When I say that programming is a very "independent" activity, what I'm trying to describe is the fact that at any time, I can think to myself, "I want do some programming", and within 30 seconds, be doing some programming. In particular, I don't have to call someone, convince them that "no, this will be fun", fail, try convincing someone else, succeed, wait for them to head over, etc. etc., by which point my impulse to do some programming has completely disappeared.
You might be surprised how much of a difference this makes, especially for an INTJ like me ;-)
That's a descriptive observation, not a normative call to action.
Why do you think something ought to be done about it?
Why do you think something ought to be done about it?
Perhaps to remove "social pressure relating to gender roles" as a confounding factor, so that people can do a better job of finding roles that are good fits for their own individual characteristics?
You're not the first person to remark on that. What do you think that we ought to do about it?
What do you think that we ought to do about it?
Perhaps we can start by encouraging "sidekick-identified" males to speak up?
In response to
Rationality Quotes January 2015
Travelling is a fool's paradise. Our first journeys discover to us the indifference of places. At home I dream that at Naples, at Rome, I can be intoxicated with beauty, and lose my sadness. I pack my trunk, embrace my friends, embark on the sea, and at last wake up in Naples, and there beside me is the stern fact, the sad self, unrelenting, identical, that I fled from. I seek the Vatican, and the palaces. I affect to be intoxicated with sights and suggestions, but I am not intoxicated. My giant goes with me wherever I go.
Ralph Waldo Emerson on If You Demand Magic, Magic Won't Help
Programming-like activities?
Programming is quite a remarkable activity:
- It has an extremely low barrier to entry
- You don't need expensive equipment
- You don't need to be in a particular location
- You don't need special credentials
- You can finding information / resources just by opening the internet
- You can learn it / do it independently
- It gives you rapid feedback (which can lead to rapid growth)
- It gives you frequent rewards (which gives a huge boost in motivation)
- It's objective and unforgiving (this is a good thing, because it teaches you how to confront reality)
- It's intellectually stimulating
- It's useful in the real world
- Corollary: you can make money or even build a career out of it
- It's badass (or are you telling me that Hackers WASN'T your favorite movie of all time?)
What are some other "programming-like" activities?
I mean this in the sense of "activities that also satisfy the above criteria", but suggestions don't have to satisfy ALL of the criteria. Here are some of the first ideas that come to mind when I try to answer the question myself:
- Electronics (but this is basically still programming)
- Math (lacks "rapid feedback" and "frequent rewards"; "useful in the real world" is also questionable)
- Go, poker, video games (usually lacks "useful in the real world", sometimes lacks "badass")
- Juggling, poi (lacks "intellectually stimulating" and "useful in the real world")
However, I've already exhausted my creativity and I'm hoping to go much deeper than this. Thoughts?
Exams and Overfitting
When I hear something like "What's going to be on the exam?", part of me gets indignant. WHAT?!?! You're defeating the whole point of the exam! You're committing the Deadly Sin of Overfitting!
Let me step back and explain my view of exams.
When I take a class, my goal is to learn the material. Exams are a way to answer the question, "How well did I learn the material?"[1]. But exams are only a few hours long, so it's unfeasible to have questions on all of the material. To deal with this time constraint, an exam takes a random sample of the material and gives me a "statistical" rather than "perfect" answer to the question, "How well did I learn the material?"
If I know in advance what topics will be covered on the exam, and if I then prepare for the exam by learning only those topics, then I am screwing up this whole process. By doing very well on the exam, I get the information, "Congratulations! You learned the material covered on the exam very well." But who knows how well I learned the material covered in class as a whole? This is a textbook case of overfitting.
To be clear, I don't necessarily lose respect for someone who asks, "What's going to be on the exam?". I understand that different people have different priorities[2], and that's fine by me. But if you're taking a class because you truly want to learn the material, in spite of any sacrifices that you might have to make to do so[3], then I'd like to encourage you not to "study for the test". I'd like to encourage you not to overfit.
[1] When I say "learned", I mean in the "Feynman" sense, not in the "teacher's password" sense. I believe that a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an exam to check for this kind of learning is to have problems that I've never seen before.
[2] Someone might care much more about getting into medical school than, say, mastering classical mechanics. I respect that choice, and I acknowledge that someone might be in a system where getting a good grade in physics is required for getting into medical school, even though mastering classical mechanics isn't required for becoming a good doctor.
[3] There were a few terms when I felt like I did a really good job of learning the material (conveniently, I also got really good grades during these terms). But for these terms, one (or both) of the following would happen:
- I would take a huge hit in social status, because I was taking barely more than the minimum courseload. At my university, there was a lot of social pressure to always take the maximum courseload (or petition to exceed the maximum courseload), and still participate in lots of extracurricular activities.
- My girlfriend at the time would break up with me because of all the time I was spending on my coursework (and not with her).
In response to
Open thread Jan. 5-11, 2015
So I signed up for a password manager, and even got a complex password. But how do I remember the password? It's a random combination of upper and lower case letters plus numbers. I suppose I could use space repition software to memorize it, but wouldn't that be insecure?
I learned a few interesting memory tricks from the movie Memento. One thing you can try is to tattoo important information on yourself, so that you don't forget it.
I can think of a few security caveats for sensitive information though:
- It's probably better if you choose a location that's not easily visible (e.g. chest, part of your arm that's covered by a shirt), though you should probably choose a location that's still somewhat accessible (i.e. not your lower back)
- If you absolutely have to use a more visible location, like your forehead, make sure you get the sensitive information tattoo'd BACKWARDS, so that only you can read it (and only when you're looking in a mirror)
On a more serious note, I find it much easier to remember random alphanumeric characters "kinesthetically" (i.e. by developing muscle memory for the act of actually typing the password), as suggested by polymathwannabe. The only downside to this approach is that it's extremely difficult for me to enter such a password on a cell phone.
In response to
The buildup to Jaynes?
A while back, I tried reading Jaynes carefully (i.e. working lots of derivations while reading). I'll share my thoughts, but since I stopped after two and a half chapters, YMMV if you read further.
(1) I felt like I was reading a physics textbook. I'm a recovering physics major, and the experience gave me a serious case of Griffiths deja vu. For example, Jaynes does things like:
- Play fast and loose with Taylor series expansions
- Give arguments based on intuition and/or symmetry
- Assume all functions are well-behaved
- Use concepts / notation from calculus that I've completely forgotten (or never learned)
If you've taken university level physics before, then you should feel somewhat at home reading the first few chapters of Jaynes. If not, I would recommend putting in a bit of extra effort to make sure that you understand EVERY step of important arguments / derivations.
(2) After several days of effort, I got to the point where... you could show that if an urn has 3 red balls and 7 black balls, then the probability of drawing a red ball is 3/10. Yay!
Ok, fine, to put it another way, by making a few VERY basic assumptions about reasoning under uncertainty, you can show that the laws of probability are uniquely determined.
If you think this is the coolest revelation ever, then you should definitely read Jaynes. On the other hand, If you'd rather learn how to win at poker, or analyze randomized algorithms, or do calculations about 3d random walks in a cylinder, or something, then Jaynes is probably not the right textbook for you at this time.
So, onto your questions:
What math topics do I already need to understand to prepare myself for this?
Calculus, how to Taylor expand, how to carefully and patiently follow a long argument. I would recommend against going down a deep rabbit hole though (e.g. I would discourage trying to learn "all of multivariable calculus" before starting Jaynes).
Is there a better book to learn probability theory?
It depends; probability theory is a huge topic, and you can attack it from many different angles depending on your goals and interests (e.g. where you want to apply it, whether you're learning it as a prerequisite for another topic). That said, if what you're after is LessWrong / CFAR street cred, then I would probably stick with Jaynes ;-)
Here are some alternatives:
- Start with a problem book, maybe this one
- Go for something that's a bit more math-ey (and less physics-ey)
- Richard Hamming is cool
In response to
Non-obvious skills with highly measurable progress?
I would say consuming mass amounts of media, learning an instrument, talking with other people, and spending time observing.
I am definitely interested in getting better at both "talking with other people" and "observing"; how would you measure your progress in these two cases?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
It does if you interpret James's comment to mean interactions with romantic intent.
Dating a single person for a long time is akin to managing a team of developers (sure, you don't get quick feedback) and chatting to someone you don't know in a book store is like quickly compiling something in a new language.
That... definitely explains my failure at "dating a single person for a long time" and my (relative) success at "chatting to someone you don't know".